The Zimmerman Verdict

The trial of the decade (so far) has ended and George Zimmerman is a free man. What are the important points we should take from this?

First, it’s clear that the system worked. Zimmerman received a fair trial. A jury of his peers found him innocent based on the law and the evidence presented at trial. Obviously, Zimmerman was foolish to ignore police advice and continue following poor Trayvon Martin. But he committed no crime in doing so. His actions provoked the confrontation that ended in Martin’s death, but again, under Florida law he was justified in shooting Martin in self-defense. The jury believed that Zimmerman feared for his life, and that’s enough in Florida to justify taking a life, even if the killer instigated the events that led up to the killing.

This trial was not a repeat of the first Rodney King trial, in which a jury consisting of ten whites, one Hispanic, and one Asian was almost certainly blinded by a conscious or unconscious fear of blacks. Nor was it OJ all over again, with a panel practicing jury nullification in support of the defendant. It did, however, resemble the OJ case in that the prosecution was quite inept. The prosecutors were ineffective in all phases of the trial, possibly because they had a weak case to begin with. The defense on the other hand hardly put a foot wrong, aside from the unfortunate knock-knock joke in its opening statement. The authorities also overcharged the case — there was never any prospect of finding Zimmerman guilty of second-degree murder. (Overcharging, by the way, is a tactic used by prosecutors all over the country as a means to get defendants to plead instead of going to trial. As such, it represents a major perversion of our justice system.)

We all should have the absolute right to defend our homes and families from aggression. But public spaces are a different matter.

We can be thankful that the verdict did not lead to major violence. The small-scale thuggery seen in Oakland and L.A. does not compare to the barbarism displayed in South Central L.A. after the King verdict. President Obama, who seems increasingly irrelevant both at home and abroad, performed a useful service by urging calm. On the other hand, the lack of a video in the Zimmerman case may have had as much to do with the absence of major violence as the measured words of America’s mixed-race chief executive.

Millions of people, both black and white, are deeply dissatisfied with the verdict. Many are urging the Justice Department to bring a civil rights case against Zimmerman. Such a case would be very hard if not impossible to prove. This analyst believes Attorney General Holder will decide not to bring a civil rights case against Zimmerman, for the simple reason that it would probably fall apart in court, embarrassing both the Justice Department and the president. That the Attorney General is an African-American probably makes it easier to resist the temptation to file federal charges against Zimmerman. An administration in which all the key players are white might very well feel compelled to do so.

Holder, like the president, has been a moderating voice in the wake of the verdict. This has been his finest hour — or rather, his first fine hour after four-plus years in office. In a recent speech he questioned the concept of Stand Your Ground laws, maintaining that people have a duty to retreat if they can safely do so — but adding the important qualifier, when outside their home. There needs to be a serious debate nationally about the concept of Stand Your Ground. In Vermont, where I live, the law says I should retreat even if a criminal comes onto my property or enters my home. This, to me, is crazy. The idea that I must flee from my home rather than subdue or kill someone coming onto my property with criminal intent repels me. But then Vermont is a crazy place.

In my view we all should have the absolute right to defend our homes and families from aggression. But public spaces are a different matter. It’s true that Zimmerman’s defense team never invoked Florida’s Stand Your Ground law. Nevertheless, that law hung like a storm cloud over the proceedings. The principle of stand your ground as applied to public spaces has led, in this case, to the death of a young man who was simply returning from a trip to the store. A cop wannabe decides to follow a teenage boy (whom he may or may not have racially profiled) despite police advice to desist, and thereby provokes a fight that leads to his shooting the kid to death. Despite these circumstances, the wannabe is innocent in the eyes of the law. The kid is dead; the wannabe walks. Surely in this case the law is an ass.

About this AuthorJon Harrison, a former Liberty contributing editor (2008–2014), is a freelance writer and editor.

Comments

" Being black and wearing a hoodie qualifies? What sort of libertarianism is this, in which it's okay, in effect, to harass someone based on their looks and not their actions?".

In case you weren't aware, that neighborhood had suffered a string of residential burglaries in which the suspects were black youths. There's nothing wrong with profiling when it narrows the list to obvious suspects. Would it have made sense to follow a fat white lady in such a case?

I read a CNN article not long after the verdict. I was surprised they included a quote from a lady that lived in the neighborhood. To paraphrase as best I remember: "Ok, I'm a black lady, but these burglaries were being committed by black youths? He did the right thing in following him".

Tue, 2013-07-23 10:08

Visitor

So, if you want to accurately profile people for crimes. It would be best to look at your cousin Donnie, who has a meth problem. And your Aunt Jenny, who has a gambling problem. They are the most likely to rob you. Not Trayvon Martin. There is just too much risk for him. While your own family members know your schedule, and can hope you will forgive them, if they are caught.

Wed, 2013-08-07 17:42

Visitor

Interesting. Given criminal statistic. Yes. It would make more sense to follow a fat white woman. Do you even know that over 50% of crimes are committed by white people?

And Mr. Harrison is quite correct. Almost all crimes are committed against people that know each other very well. Usually, family, and close friends. The stranger lurking the streets in a hoodie is so rare as to be inconsequential in criminal statistics.

So, to go by the logic of Mr. Mangels, it would be best if we followed our family members, and close friends. Because they are much, much more likely to rob us than some kid walking to the store.

Wed, 2013-08-07 17:24

Visitor

I take Mr. Harrison is not a supporter of Jury nullification.

I do. The "that's just the law" argument is quite lame. Just the way the cookie crumbles. There are countless cases, from all cultures, where law is unjust. i.e. slavery in the US, Women must cover themselves in Iran, etc.

Jury nullification is one of the few ways a minority can protect itself from a majority.